Gartner Announces Rankings of the 2018 Top 25 North American Supply Chain University Graduate Programs

Pennsylvania State University Defends Pole Position, University of Michigan No. 2

Gartner, Inc. has released the findings from its biennial Top 25 North American Supply Chain Graduate Programs report. Forty-six institutions in the U.S. and Canada participated in the survey.

The report is intended to support chief supply chain officers (CSCOs), heads of supply chain strategy and supply chain HR partners to identify the programs best equipped to help them recruit the right talent.

“The number of one-year or part-time master of science in supply chain management (MSSCM) programs grew by two-thirds in two years: this year we evaluated 30 programs, while in 2016 there were only 18,” said Dana Stiffler, research vice president at Gartner. “We also found that graduates on average are more diverse than the supply chain organizations that want to hire them, with women accounting for 37 percent of the supply chain graduate student population and ethnic minorities for 48 percent.”

Pennsylvania State University leads the graduate rankings at No. 1, retaining its leading position from previous years (see Table 1). The University of Michigan moved up two spots, securing No. 2, with the University of Tennessee now at No. 3.

The biggest upward movers in 2018 are Northeastern University, moving up 11 places to No. 13, and North Carolina State advancing four places to No. 15. The most highly ranked new entrant in the graduate ranking is the University of Minnesota (No. 6). The other rookies are Wayne State University (No. 17), the University of Southern California (No. 18) and the University of Washington (No. 24). Two programs from the 2014 rankings made a comeback in 2018: the University of Houston (No. 23) and the University of San Diego (No. 25).

The top 25 ranking order is:

1 – Pennsylvania State University
2 – University of Michigan
3 – University of Tennessee
4 – Michigan State University
5 – Rutgers University
6 – University of Minnesota
7 – Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8 – Arizona State University
9 – The University of Texas at Dallas
10 – University of Wisconsin-Madison
11 – Georgia Institute of Technology
12 – Indiana University
13 – Northeastern University
14 – Ohio State University
15 – North Carolina State University
16 – Texas Christian University
17 – Wayne State University
18 – University of Southern California
19 – Howard University
20 – The University of Texas at Austin
21 – University of South Carolina
22 – Syracuse University
23 – University of Houston
24 – University of Washington
25 – University of San Diego

Additional trends to note:

Technology content has increased significantly in the past two years. Seventy-nine percent of MBA programs and 83 percent of MSSCM programs look at supply chain applications and tools as well as the broader role of technology in today’s supply chains. This is a notable improvement compared with 2016, where less than half of MBA programs and two-thirds of MSSCM programs featured dedicated technology content.

The average starting salary for MBAs with a supply chain concentration is $88,935, up from $83,597 in 2016. The average starting salary for a MSSCM is $83,066, up from $79,232. It is encouraging to see that the MSSCM starting salary holds its value despite the 67 percent increase in the number of programs.

Across supply chain graduate programs, one-third of the student body is international. While global companies can take advantage of this diversity, some companies and sectors will struggle with their candidates’ visa status or be prohibited from hiring them.

Gartner sent out individualized request for information (RFI) links to supply chain program contacts at universities in the U.S. and Canada. In total, 53 graduate programs provided complete RFI responses for advanced degree programs. Forty-six of those universities offered eligible programs: delivered on-campus or in a hybrid on-campus/online format. The final placement of university programs in Gartner’s relative comparison is based on a composite score of three categories: program scope, industry value and program size.